Hello everybody, i think i have a solid argument against free will.
let's begin with the following question:
why can't we,at any moment, on command, instantly feel a specific feeling (whether it's positive or negative
is irrelevant) ? The truth of the matter is , anybody can,in certain situations, instantly (or at least very quickly) feel a specific feeling .
here are 2 examples:
example 1: a child and his family were very poor. one day the child's father won
one million dollars. afterwards he came toward the child with a big smile and told him the news.
the child instantly experienced a feeling of joy and relief (he was depressed literally a few seconds before that).
example 2: a child and his family were very poor. one day the child's father became insane
( the child hasn't been aware of that yet), came toward the child with a big smile and told him
that he won one million dollars ( he didn't actually win ) . the child believed him and instantly
became very happy (and of course he had eventually learnt the bitter truth).
the second example demonstrates that the reason behind the feeling of happiness isn't the disapearence
of the problem ( poverty ) itself, but rather the disapearence of its "imprint" from the child's "mind".
we know from neurobiology that the different feelings that we experience are the result of various
substances (mostly hormones) circulating in our bodies and electrical signals forming in our brains.
so there are no physical limitations that prevent our bodies from instantly making us experience
certain feelings, and yet we can't ( at least not at every given moment) instantly induce those feelings at will.
i'm arguing that what i just said is evidence against free will. please feel free to challenge my argument and correct any mistakes i might have made.

I agree with what you said, but i'm a little skeptical about the idea that every behavior or feeling we express is the result of evolution. for example sky diving or any other dangerous recreational activity.

I agree with what you said, but i'm a little skeptical about the idea that every behavior or feeling we express is the result of evolution. for example sky diving or any other dangerous recreational activity.

Skydiving: it is an evolutionary advantage to to go where no other humans has gone before, to try things that no other people have tried before.

Skydiving saves human lives. Those falling out of airplanes that have been shot down or malfunction, survive. Those who survive, will reproduce, or else help their offspring to grow and develop to full reproductive maturity.

--------------------

I like your example in the original post. Metaphysically it proves nothing, but it provides evidence to support the "no free will" opinion. Biologically, it provides a very strong evidence against free will.

I have an argument in favor of free will: A Thought precedes the related act. This means that the thought and the act cannot coexist at the same point therefore there exist a point between them, mute point or decision point, at which one neither think nor act. The point is mute therefore it cannot be consciously affected by thoughts. Therefore the decision is made at the mute point is free.

I have an argument in favor of free will: A Thought precedes the related act. This means that the thought and the act cannot coexist at the same point therefore there exist a point between them, mute point or decision point, at which one neither think nor act. The point is mute therefore it cannot be consciously affected by thoughts. Therefore the decision is made at the mute point is free.

i'm arguing that what i just said is evidence against free will. please feel free to challenge my argument and correct any mistakes i might have made.

You have given some good examples to support your claim (although it’s kind of amusing that you are mounting an argument against free will, yet you end it with this: “...please feel free to challenge my argument...” ).

I suggest that most arguments against free will usually come across as being some kind of universal - yes or no - proposition when, in fact, it is more of a sometimes we do and sometimes we don’t.

A simple example would be in how I had free will to respond (or not) to your OP.

Another example would be in how an abstract artist has free will to choose a specific medium to express her ideas (e.g., clay, metal, canvas, etc.), or a specific color (hue/tone) of paint to use at any given point. However, she does not have free will to paint or sculpt a square circle.

In other words, the way in which reality itself is configured dictates the limits of our free will, but it at least allows us a certain amount of leeway (free will/personal choice) under many circumstances.

The point is that, again, free will is not a completely yes or a completely no situation.
_______

I have an argument in favor of free will: A Thought precedes the related act. This means that the thought and the act cannot coexist at the same point therefore there exist a point between them, mute point or decision point, at which one neither think nor act. The point is mute therefore it cannot be consciously affected by thoughts. Therefore the decision is made at the mute point is free.

Then how does the decision take place? It can't be caused by itself.

It is uncaused meaning that it is not related to options. You are making the decision since you are a free agent.

i'm arguing that what i just said is evidence against free will. please feel free to challenge my argument and correct any mistakes i might have made.

You have given some good examples to support your claim (although it’s kind of amusing that you are mounting an argument against free will, yet you end it with this: “...please feel free to challenge my argument...” ).

No self-contradiction there. There is no freedom; only an illusion, or "feeling" of freedom.

I have an argument in favor of free will: A Thought precedes the related act. This means that the thought and the act cannot coexist at the same point therefore there exist a point between them, mute point or decision point, at which one neither think nor act. The point is mute therefore it cannot be consciously affected by thoughts. Therefore the decision is made at the mute point is free.

Memory will carry the thought's decision to carry out the decision in the related act.

The mute point does not have the effect of erasing the decision. It is only a passage of time, but memory is perfectly capable of carrying on the decision made by thought.

Your argument is invalid, Bahman, inasmuch as it is not proof or evidence of "free" will.

I have an argument in favor of free will: A Thought precedes the related act. This means that the thought and the act cannot coexist at the same point therefore there exist a point between them, mute point or decision point, at which one neither think nor act. The point is mute therefore it cannot be consciously affected by thoughts. Therefore the decision is made at the mute point is free.

Memory will carry the thought's decision to carry out the decision in the related act.

The mute point does not have the effect of erasing the decision. It is only a passage of time, but memory is perfectly capable of carrying on the decision made by thought.

Your argument is invalid, Bahman, inasmuch as it is not proof or evidence of "free" will.

We are just aware of options when thoughts cannot help us to decide. Decision of course is not free when it is based on a thought.

You have given some good examples to support your claim (although it’s kind of amusing that you are mounting an argument against free will, yet you end it with this: “...please feel free to challenge my argument...” ).

No your example is not about free will but about deciding to do something... these are not the same thing.

Free will requires no causal chain (determinism) and nothing you are saying, including colouring a letter orange, is outside that... you did that to try to prove a point: so for a reason not random and outside causality.

The problem is that even if you could find an action outside of causality it would still not prove free will: as for free will to be involved the self has to be the trigger not randomnes

The difficulty is that free will is used in different ways outside of philosophy, especially in law, where it is routinely conflated with mere will (unimpeded decision making)...this muddies the waters.

You have given some good examples to support your claim (although it’s kind of amusing that you are mounting an argument against free will, yet you end it with this: “...please feel free to challenge my argument...” ).

No self-contradiction there. There is no freedom; only an illusion, or "feeling" of freedom.

Wasn’t the fact that you personally chose to respond to this one particular post of mine an example of genuine free will on your part? No it wasn't. Prove that it was.

Wasn’t the fact that I personally chose to color one of the letters orange in my reply back to you an example of genuine free will on my part? No, it wasn't. Prove that it was.

If not, then please give a clear description of the literal underlying mechanism that made our actions a product of determinism, as opposed to free will choice. Please don't order me around. If you do, I'll just ignore your orders.
_______

Since when have you had the feeling of entitlement to order people around on the internet?

You gave me no argument, you did not prove my point wrong, you just ordered me to explain myself.

Well. I am not your employee, and I am not responsible to you for your misunderstandings and un-understandings.

Since when have you had the feeling of entitlement to order people around on the internet?

You gave me no argument, you did not prove my point wrong, you just ordered me to explain myself.

Well. I am not your employee, and I am not responsible to you for your misunderstandings and un-understandings.

For the life of me, in reading back my reply to you I can’t even begin to imagine why it would have evoked such a negative and defensive response from you.

However, -1-, if I came across as sounding in the way you have portrayed it, I certainly didn’t mean to, and I apologize.

(What I was actually thinking while writing my reply was that I was glad that you hadn’t put me on your “iggy” list, for I have had some enjoyable discussions with you.)

Now, as to the substance of your harshly worded retort.

Firstly, the first two lines in my reply back to you was (is) my argument.

And secondly, the third line in my reply (in which I used the word “please,” btw) was simply in response to you implying that I was wrong in what I had stated to mysterious existence, while you insisted that free will is just an illusion or a “feeling” of freedom.

Now, how about you...

(and I am submitting this request as humbly and as eggshell walkingly as possible)

...again, how about you reread the three lines of my earlier reply and take it in the spirit of friendly philosophical debate as was initially intended - (but maybe take a nap first ).
_______

Last edited by seeds on Wed Dec 12, 2018 12:49 am, edited 1 time in total.